Jump to content

Talk:India/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Bharata Ganarajya - Sanskrit or Hindi

The phrase "Bharata Ganarajya" has indisputable origins in Sanskrit which I will not explicate here because it is clarified by other users in the article |Bhārata Gaṇarājya. This is the proper transliteration according to the constitution. In such a case, the source language should be duly noted. Hindi may rightly contain the phrase but is neither the source nor the sole recipient.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanamad (talk • contribs)

The words "Gana" and "Rajya" are clearly Sanskrit loanwords (in Hindi); however, Ganarajya is a Hindi neologism created in the 20th century as a word in the Hindi language. It may, at that time, have been incorporated into modern Sanskrit. If you are claiming that the word "Ganarajya" is actually a Sanskrit word with classical antecedents, I'd like to see a citation for it from a classical source. It us unlikely that the concept of Ganarajya (lit. the "Rule of the people") existed in ancient India. If so, where was it practised? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
And I'd like to see a citation that the 'neologism' was 'created' in the Hindi language. Sarvagnya 05:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The word Ganarajya was in use even before Hindi was even born. See this Sanskrit-English dictionary. It says [ gaNarAjya ]3[ gaN'a-rAjya ] n. N. of an empire in the Deccan , xiv , 14. You may have to give proof that Ganarajya was coined after independence if you were to claim otherwise. Gnanapiti 06:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
UNESCO website says However, during ancient India, particularly at the time of Kutilya, Buddha and Ashoka, the emergence of local representatives (Gana) and their elected leaders (Ganapati) is noticed. They used to manage the Ganarajya (republics) mostly in the form of city republics. Subsequently, the "king" became more powerful and eroded the powers of Gana and started ruling through his nominees. Gnanapiti 06:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
We are talking here about the modern meaning of the word. That meaning, as I mentioned above, is 20th century Hindi neologism. The word itself existed in classical India, but its meaning, which was the same as Ganapati, applied to a person, not a nation. See Britannica on Ancient India, "The political system in these states was either monarchical or a type of representative government that variously has been called republican or oligarchic. The fact that representation in these latter states' assemblies was limited to members of the ruling clan makes the term oligarchy, or even chiefdom, preferable... The oligarchies comprised either a single clan or a confederacy of clans. The elected chief or the president (ganapati, ganarajya) functioned with the assistance of a council of elders probably selected from the Ksatriya families." The UNESCO website you mention is an urban development site in which the Indian contributor, Dr. Kulwant Singh, Executive Director, Human Settlements Management Institute (HSMI), New Delhi, who is not a historian, has subtly changed the meaning of the word in order to claim classical Indian provenance for Greek concepts of "democracy" and "republic." As for the Sanskrit English dictionary, I couldn't access it; however, regardless, the meaning you quote is hardly the modern one. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
PS It could be a late 19th century Bengali neologism as well, since many "modern" words were incorporated into Hindi via Bengali, but my point is that it was not a classical Sanskrit word (in this modern meaning). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
No idea if the word গণরাজ্য (Ganarajya) was ever used in Bengali to mean republic (though it is a valid Bangla word / word-combination), but the actual and widely used word for Republic in Bengali is প্রজাতন্ত্র (Projatontro, Prajatantra). For example, Bangladesh's official name is গণপ্রজাতন্ত্রী বাংলাদেশ (Gonoprojatontri Bangladesh). --Ragib 07:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not the original meaning of the word Ganarajya has the same connotations as the modern day manifestation, the word origin rests securely within the Sanskrit language. Word meanings change over time contextually, but that cannot change their origin or history. User:Yanamad

Had it been a word that saw continuous use and evolved over time, it would be different. This particular word and its usage went extinct (along with the Sanskrit language). It was reborn (with the development of Hindi) with a revamped meaning, as a lexical calque of English words of Greek origin ("democracy" or "republic"). It is a neologism in Hindi formed with Sanskrit loanwords. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh i see. And where is the evidence that this is Hindi? We've been through enough of similar nonsense on Jana Gana Mana. Sarvagnya 06:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
User Sarvagyna seems to have contempt for Hindi. Clearly not the kind that familiarity breeds. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
User Fowler seems to have contempt for Sanskrit and possibly anything Indian . Clearly the kind that ignorance breeds. Sarvagnya 22:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It is both a classically attested Sanskrit word (with a somewhat different meaning), and a Sanskrit neologism (a calque of republica). Comparison with English democracy or republic is flawed, since these are anglicized and thus clearly marked as loanwords within English. Use of ganarajya should much rather be compared to a hypothetical demokratia (in this spelling) used in English. Yes, Sanskrit is actively developed, much like neo-Latin. There can be no doubt that datarum ordinatrum is Latin, even though the term refers to a concept unfamiliar to Cicero. Sanskrit was never "extinct", fowler, it was posh jargon of the learned caste from the beginning, and has always had an (admittedly dwindling) community of fluent speakers. dab (𒁳) 07:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

F&f, please stop edit-warring about this. The name is about as "Hindi" as videlicet, eo ipso or cui bono are "English". dab (𒁳) 10:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

भारत गणराज्य is the official Hindi name of the Republic of India (and possibly also in other Indian languages?) As with many Hindi names, all its components are derived Sanskrit, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the Hindi name. Still, because it isn't only a Hindi name, I think saying "Sanskrit" is a better option as it otherwise gives a misleading impression. As regards the "Bharat" vs. "Bharata" issue, if we are using the National Library of Kolkata romanisation (as we should be doing because it is the standard used by the Indian government), the romanisation of even the Hindi phrase will have an "a" at the end. I don't think there is any system of Devanagari transliteration which removes final "a"s? -- Lexmercatoria 11:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's the official name of the Republic of India. Who says it's the official Hindi name? It's the official "Hindi" name of the RoI as Confoederatio Helvetica is the official "German" name of Switzerland. It may be used in German (just as French or Italian) texts, but that doesn't make it German (or French or Italian). dab (𒁳) 13:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
India, unlike Switzerland, does not have a single official name in all its official languages. In Marathi and Gujarati, for example, the official name of India is "Bhāratiya Prajāsattāka", and even official documents written in those languages will use "Bhāratiya Prajāsattāka", not "Bhārata Gaṇarājya". Tamil official documents use something totally unrecognisable. So "Bhārata Gaṇarājya" is not a pan-language official name, and the only reason our passports say "Bhārata Gaṇarājya" is because it is the official name of India in Hindi.
Also, because of the sanskritisation of modern Hindi "Gaṇarājya" is the normal Hindi word for "republic." The Hindi name for the Czech Republic is "cek gaṇarājya", Slovakia is "slovāk gaṇarājya", the Republic of Congo is "cāṃgo gaṇarājya", and so on. This is where your analogy with "Confoederatio Helvetica" falls down. "Bhārata Gaṇarājya" is a grammatically and lexically valid Hindi name, unlike "Confoederatio Helvetica" in German.
I still say, as I said above, that the article should continue to say "Sanskrit: Bhārata Gaṇarājya" as it says now, because a few other Indian languages like Kannada do use the same name, so it isn't exclusive to Hindi (marking it Hindi would make it seem so). But in the process, let's not confuse the issue as to why the name has official status. However Bharat is considered the official name.-- Lexmercatoria 18:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
(Unrelated) Out of curiosity, could anyone tell me what is the Hindi phrase for "People's Republic"? Several countries use this (including People's_Republic_of_China, Bangladesh etc.). In Bengali, this translates as Ganaprajatantro (e.g. Ganapratantri Bangladesh). --Ragib 18:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
In Hindi, it is "janavādi gaṇarājya", so China is "janavādi gaṇarājya cīn". In Marathi, it is "janatece prajāsattāka", so China is "cīnce janatece prajāsattāka". -- Lexmercatoria 19:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lexmercatoria's comment about "ganarajya" not being a pan-Indian name. Here is R. S. McGregor in the Oxford Hindi-English dictionary, "The potential of Hindi as a favoured form of Hindi-Urdu, and the great geographical range of Hindi-Urdu across the subcontinent and indeed beyond (which makes this language probably the world's third in terms of numbers of users) brought it about that 'Hindi in the Devanagari script' was recognised in 1947 as the official language of India." So, the reason why "Bharata Ganarajya" is there on the India page is simply that it is the name in the official language of India. As for Dab's comments, I am, of course, aware that Sanskrit didn't become completely extinct, but it stopped evolving in the way that a "living" language does (i.e. one spoken and written by a large number of users). There were of course the proverbial coterie of pundits who kept Sanskrit half-alive during the last millennium by reciting the Rig Veda in eleven different ways, but they didn't create the neologism "ganarajya." That was created by users of Hindi, as Hindi increasingly became a language of instruction and nationalism in the late 19th century. As I said above, the word "ganarajya" is a calque (loan translation (of meaning)) of the English "democracy" in the form of a neologism formed with two Hindi words of Sanskrit origin ("gana" and "rajya"). ganarajya" might now be a neologism of modern (neo-) Sanskrit as well, and, for example, be caught on the nightly Sanskrit news broadcast by the Indian national radio, by all half dozen people who listen to it. However, comparisons with videlicet are inappropriate. Unlike videlicet in English, all three words "gana," "rajya," and "ganarajya" are common words in Hindi, used in such constructions as "ganavadi" (republican), "gana-tantra" (the more common name for republic), "rajya sabha" (council of state) etc.

A good comparative example is the late 19th century neologism "protophyll," which the OED splits as: [f. PROTO- + Gr. {phi}{guacu}{lambda}{lambda}-{omicron}{nu} leaf.], without saying that "protophyll" is Greek, although it now might be used in scientific Greek as well. So, how about: Hindi: "Bharat Ganarajya" (f. Skt. Bharat (India) Gana (people) + Rajya (state))? I won't revert anything, but I think to say that "ganarajya" in its current meaning is Sanskrit is essentially incorrect. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

PS I just talked to Colin Masica, who agreed with my analysis. He added that he was not aware of a readily available utility for looking up history of usage of Hindi words (similar,for example, to the OED, which provides a history of usage of all its words). He also added that a Sanskrit word could be translated differently into different Indian languages; for example, the word "samadhan" means "solution" in Sanskrit and Hindi, but (apparently) means "answer" or "reply" in Kannada, and "peace" in Malayalam. So, not only do different Indian languages have different (Sanskrit derived) names for "republic," (as mentioned by Lexmercatoria above) but the word "ganarajya" itself (to the extent that it exists in these languages) could mean different things. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Three points:
  • Although both "gaṇatantra" and "gaṇarājya" mean "republic", there is a slight distinction in usage. "Gaṇatantra" is used in an adjectival sense - e.g. "gaṇatantra divasa" for "Republic day" - and sometimes to refer to the abstract concept, but "gaṇarājya" is always used for "Republic" in the name of a country. You could say "gaṇarājya" is closer in meaning to something like "Republican state."
  • I am not sure if the word "gaṇarājya" was coined in Hindi. It is used in Kannada (and I think also in Telugu), but not in Marathi and Gujarati. If it were of Hindi origin, I would expect it to be the other way around, because Kannada and Telugu have usually coined different words from Hindi for modern concepts, although all use Sanskrit roots as their source. I have no idea what sources are available in relation to the etymology of the term.
  • I favour saying "Sanskrit" because some languages other than Hindi (but not all) use this name. If someone can arrive at a better formulation that captures this, that would be welcome. -- Lexmercatoria 21:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
(the last reply overlapped with Fowler&Fowler's post, adding a further point) F&F, a good example of words having slightly different meanings is "gaṇatantra" itself, which means "republic" in Hindi, but "democracy" in some other languages. I've never seen "gaṇatantra" used to mean "democracy" in Hindi, contrary to what you say. "Democracy" is usually rendered "prajātantra" or "lokatantra". Which emphasises my point that the fact that "gaṇarājya" has the same meaning in Hindi and two South Indian languages strongly indicates that it was not invented in the Hindi heartland in the 19th century. At least, we can't assume it is, nor can we base what we say in the article on that assumption. -- Lexmercatoria 21:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I didn't say, ganatantra meant democracy. (gana + tantra (system) is clearly the word for republic.) What I said was that "ganarajya," is a calque of the English word "democracy" (i.e. "rule of the people"), although it has come to mean "republic" in Hindi As for whether "ganarajya" was imported into Hindi via either Kannada or Telegu, of course anything is possible, but according to McGregor the immediate source of a number of new Hindi words of the early 20th century was not Sanskrit itself, but Sanskritized Bengali of the late 19th- and early 20th century. At any rate, I think Abecedare below seems to have a workable resolution. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I edited my comment as I was typing it, and "contrary to what you say" was a hangover from something I deleted as irrelevant (or tried to, anyway). -- Lexmercatoria 19:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

To summarize the above discussion, I think we have established that Republic of India is translated differently in various Indian languages and in particular as Bhārata Gaṇarājya in Hindi/Sanskrit/Kannada etc. We also believe that the use of the word "Ganarajya" in its modern meaning is a recent development (this, say, contrasts with the etymology of India and Bharat themselves, which trace relatively further back.) The only remaining dispute seems to be regarding the sequence in which the word Ganarajya entered the different languages, and whether it should be labelled Hindi/Sanskrit etc.
Assuming my understanding, as outlined above, is correct the question I have is why we should provide translation of "Republic of India" into any Indian language on the English wikipedia. Instead, why not simply reword the first sentence along the lines:

The Republic of India, commonly known as India or Bharat (see also other names), is a sovereign country in South Asia.

We can even place the parenthetical remarks as a footnote or in the Etymology section. Note that the name Bharat is established by the Indian constitution [1] and is not the name of the country in any particular language; therefore we don't need to provide its transliteration in Devanagari etc in the article lead, although we can continue to do so in the Etymology section. Comments/objections ? Abecedare 23:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. In fact the version of the India page I first encountered in November 2006 was similar (i.e. without the ganarajya). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So, at this point we have to ask ourselves why we mention the term at all, in the intro. Since Sanskrit does not have the status of an "union language", while Hindi does, that reason could only be "because it is 'Hindi'", not "because it is Sanskrit". Because of this, I guess I have just changed my mind, and now think that we should either declare the term as "Hindi" (the only "official language of the Union" besides English), or drop it altogether and delegate it to India (name) (I guess we will all agree that we do not want to cite the names of ther RoI in all 23 official languages in the intro). dab (𒁳) 16:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think I was trying to say something similar somewhere above, although I didn't explain it as clearly as Dab above. I agree with him more or less in toto. Either of these two resolutions are also acceptable to me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(editconflicted)The fact is that Bharata Ganarajya is as Sanskrit as Satyameva Jayate and both are used as tatsamas in several Indian languages; and Hindi is just one of these languages(this is a fact which only people like Fowler, who're clearly ignorant of other Indian languages fail to recognise). I wonder why nobody has yet claimed Satyameva Jayate also for Hindi?!

Not just in Kannada and Telugu(as Lex said) but even in several other languages including Gujarati and Marathi(which I think he left out) both these terms are valid words. Whether they have other synonyms(in many cases, even those would be from Sanskrit) in those languages and whether they find a place in official jargon is besides the point. The point is that these terms are 24 carat Sanskrit words. And several languages have loaned them as is. That makes these words also 'native'(so to speak) to all these recipient languages.

But if it ever comes to putting it down to one language, we will have to go with Sanskrit. If we are to call it Hindi in this article, we will also have to mention all of the several other 'recipient' languages(with the transliterations). This, of course, would be ludicrous. So, we'll just have to call it Sanskrit(which it is) even if some want to believe that it is dead and gone. Sarvagnya 17:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

For starters, neither "ganarajya" nor "satyameva jayate" are tatsamas. A tatsama is an unmodified noun borrowing from Sanskrit which has retained its form and meaning. "ganarajya" is a tatpurusha compound in both Sanskrit and Hindi, whose modern meaning in Hindi is different from its classical one in Sanskrit. "satyameva jayate" is a Sanskrit phrase. It can't be Hindi phrase because there is no conjugation "jayate" (triumphs) of "jaya" (triumph) in the Hindi language. The Hindi would be "jit-ta hai," or something similar. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hindi transliterations

The above discussions bring us to an even more basic question - the question of transliterations. I want to ask why we need Hindi transliterations at all in this article. The reason, I presume is because Hindi is one of the 'official languages of the union'. Fine. Except that it still doesnt explain why we need transliterations in Hindi on wikipedia. 'Official language status' given to Hindi by the Indian government is only that it be used in official gazzettes and communication of the central govt.,(along with English). Those privileges and the Indian govt's writ certainly dont extend to wikipedia. For that matter, the Indian government has designated that the peacock is the national bird. That certainly doesnt mean that we on wikipedia have to treat it any more special than we treat, say, the crow. Yes, we will certainly mention in the Peacock article that it is India's national bird and by the same token we can and do mention in the Hindi article that it is one of the official languages of the union. There is no need to plaster Hindi all over dozens of articles under the Indian Wikiproject. Sarvagnya 17:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, I think Dab, F&F and I, all agree (see above discussion) that the Hindi/Sanskrit transliteration of "Republic of India" is superfluous in the lead. Isn't that what you are saying too ? Abecedare 17:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
We can not just leave the beginning (or the infobox, at least) with just "Republic of India," because this opposes Wikipedia:Wikiproject_countries#Facts_table. That page states the following: "The official long-form name of the country in the local language is to go on top as the caption [of the infobox]. If there are several official names (languages), list all. The conventional long-form name (in English), if it differs from the local long-form name, should follow the local name(s)."
I also think that the same applies for the lead section. So, it is a must to put Bharata Gan.arajya in the beginning of the article; whether it is Hindi or Sanskrit I do not know. I am putting the Hindi/Sanskrit names back. Thank you. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 17:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
U=a: It's a subcontinent, there is no "local" name, there are some 200 "local names". We can reasonably list all national languages on the Switzerland article (four), but we cannot reasonably do it here. But feel free to help us to even collect that list, at Names of India#Republic of India: this list is linked from the intro and the infobox, but it's in a shabby state. Less debating, more working on improving things, please. dab (𒁳) 17:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
U=a, the options seem to be, (1) Including all the (official) "native" language translations in the infobox and the lead just like Switzerland does, except that we will have roughly 22 such translations (roughly, because the translations in some languages will overlap), (2) use only the English name in the India article and list the various translations elsewhere.
I definitely prefer the second option - remember that MOS is a guideline and can be overruled if and when it conflicts with consensus, reason and common sense (as seems to be the case in this instance) I however would recommend that any objections be thrashed out here, rather than edit warring on the main page.Abecedare 17:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
A third option (which I prefer) would be to put "Bharat" in both the infobox and the introduction, as Abecedare suggested. The Constitution makes "Bharat" official, with no reference to language.
A practical problem with the first option is that we don't know the official name in each of the 22/23 languages. The two lists (should they be combined, by the way?) at Names of India#Republic of India and Official names of India are incomplete, and I am not sure how reliable they are. For example, is the official Urdu name really "Jumhuriyat-e-Hindustan"? The article on India in the Urdu Wikipedia is under "Bharat".[2] Whatever the theoretical arguments, I don't think we can implement the first option. -- Lexmercatoria 19:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

alright, so we have the following options:

  • (a) just put the English term, since this is en-wiki, and English is a "language of the union"
  • (b) give both English and Hindi as "local" names, since these are the two "languages of the union" (fine with me, but we'll get no end of trouble from the non-Hindi Indian editors)
  • (c) follow MoS to the letter and give the 1,652 "local names" (huh)
  • (d) be semi-reasonable and give only the 22 languages of the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution
  • (e) give "Bharat" as the "local" name in "Standard Average Indian" without specifying which language this is.
  • (f) keeping it simple, ignoring this discussion, and revert to the old version without switching on our brains (yes, that's you, U=a)

Note that (c) and (d) become an option only after someone took the trouble to complile these lists. I suggest you sit down and do that, U=a, before any further reverting. dab (𒁳) 19:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I draw your attention to South Africa which has 10 official languages besides English. They list them all, "hidden" by default. If someone manages to compile a referenced list of the official name in all 22 "languages of the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution", I suppose we can do the same here. The ball is thus in the court of anyone unhappy with the present solution: get to work on Official names of India.

Einstein90 has brought back the "Ganarayja". I have left a message for him at his talk page to ask him to join this discussion and explain why he disagrees with just having "Bharat". -- Lexmercatoria 11:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Officially, the Government of India is called 'Bharat Sarkar' in all official languages, regardless of whether there would be any difference in the concerned language (like 'hukumat-e-hindustan' in Urdu). The word 'Bharat' is simply translitterated to whatever script the language in question uses. My suggestion would be "India, officially the Republic of India, or Bharat (in Devanagari: भारत), is a sovereign country in South Asia." --Soman 13:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? It is definitely not called "Bharat Sarkar" in English, which is an official language. Every official English document refers to it as the "Government of India". -- Lexmercatoria 14:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I think that the MoS, even though the rules there can be flexed, should not be completely ignored. It states that the name of a country should be given in all its languages. (Possible interpretation: I think that it means all the official languages. It definitely can not mean every single one spoken in the country, because then India would not be the only country in trouble; e.g.: in the US, English is [most probably] the official language; however, there are Spanish, French, German, and innumerable other national communities living there. Does that mean that the name of the US should be written in each and every language?) That is where the flexing comes in. Obviously, English and Hindi are the most important languages (since they are the two languages of the Union). So, it would be best to list the name of a country, instead of all 23 official languages, in the two most important ones. Of course, that does not discard the 21 other languages. So, the link to other languages can be used to cover up the 21 apparently non-important languages (no offense to anyone by the phrase "non-important"). So, I think that the original sentence was the best because it did the following: it listed the English name in the beginning (which is required by the MoS; English is also an official language of India). Then, in parentheses, the local name (in Sanskrit/Hindi) was also given along with the translation of the Sanskrit/Hindi text, which was another covering of the second one of the two most important languages. Then, a link was provided to the names of India in the 21 other (non-important) languages, covering all the other official languages of India. I believe that that was good because it does not go against the MoS but instead flexes the rules a bit, which is allowed. It is neither too much (excellently wraps up 23 languages) and neither too less (by, for example, only listing one of the two most important languages). Thank you. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 16:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

that Sanskrit/Hindi is "more important" than "non-important" Tamil or Telugu or Bengali seems to be your personal opinion. You seem to suggest option (b) above. As I say, that's fine with me, but you'll face objection from speakers of "non-important" languages like Tamil or Bengali. I find the present solution superior, since India and Bharat (in transliteration, without committing to a specific script) seem to cover the short name in pretty much all of the 23 official languages. dab (𒁳) 16:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Dab, no it is not at all my personal opinion. Rather, I draw that information from the fact that Hindi and English are the two official languages of the Union and therefore the most important. Whether the name is Hindi or Sanskrit I do not know. About the potential "objections" that you are talking about, those users will have to set aside their linguistic pride and focus for the better of the article; if not, their opinions will, regretfully, have to be ignored, because those users only care about their own languages and not for the facts that build up Wikipedia. So, the reasonable solution in your (plural) hands, but you all are just not willing to accept it, for a reason that is unknown to me. Thank you. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 18:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
If Hindi is one of the official languages of the union, then so be it. We shall certainly mention that fact in the article. We dont have to use the Hindi script to do that. This article or any article on english wikipedia is not any 'official' gazette of the Govt. of India for us to give Hindi the special treatment that it gets in the same. For that matter, I dont think even an official gazette of the Govt of India would use Hindi transliterations every step of the way if it was in English. That being the case, there's no need for us to afford Hindi any backdoors on wikipedia. The Indian government's writ, biases and prejudices(legal or otherwise) doesnt and should not extend to wikipedia. If it did, we will first have to fix the map to show all of Kashmir as India.
The question of 'non-Hindis' setting aside their 'linguistic pride' doesnt arise at all. If anything, there's a need for 'Hindis' to get used to the fact that outside of the corridors of power of the central govt of India, Hindi is no more important than any other language. If there is any language in India that can arguably claim to be 'more important' than other languages, it is English which is the official, link and national language for all practical purposes. Sarvagnya 18:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Sarvagnya illustrates my point. I'm afraid it will have to be the full list of 23. dab (𒁳) 18:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, but perhaps it would be better to put the entire local name of India, instead of just plain "Bharat" to "Bharata Gan.arajya." That said, imaging yourself visiting this article for the first time. You see that the native name for this country called India is Bharata Gan.arajya (or Bharat, if the first point is not approved). Huh??? What language is it in? So, perhaps the language of the "Bhrata Gan.arajya" (or "Bharata") should be put in order to tell the reader what language that is in. Thank you. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 19:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Have we reached any conclusion that the wording is Hindi? --Ragib 19:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Bharata Ganarajya is as unmistakeably Sanskrit as Satyameva Jayate is. If the Hindi equivalent also happens to be 'Bharata Ganarajya', then so be it. We can mention it in the Official names of India article along with the other native names in assamese, oriya, tamil, kannada etc.,. And come to think of it, that article itself should probably be moved to Native names of India in different languages or something. Sarvagnya 20:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the documents, make whatever decision you will -

This is from the The Department of Official Language - Government of India.Bakaman 21:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Baka, that is precisely my point too. Hindi is 'official' language of the 'Union of India' - not of wikipedia. See my comments just a couple of comments above. Sarvagnya 23:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No "Bharat Ganarajya" it is not as unmistakably Sanskrit as "Satyam Eva Jayate" is. As I have said above "Bharat Ganarajya" is a tatpurusha compound in Hindi, the national language of India (a compound of two Hindi tatsamas (unmodified Sanskrit loanwords), "gana" and "rajya"). The compound "ganarajya" is formed the same way in Hindi as it is in Sanskrit. Other such compounds would be "jana-rajya" or "praja-rajya" etc. All make grammatical sense in Hindi and Sanskrit. "Satyam Eva Jayate" is a phrase from the Upanishad and is irredeemably Sanskrit; it has nothing to do with Hindi, and doesn't make grammatical sense in Hindi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

For starters, Hindi is NOT India's 'national' language and as for the word itself, it is as much a tatpurusha in Sanskrit and Kannada and Telugu and several other languages as it is in Hindi. And as Gnanapiti showed above, this 'tatpurusha' is first attested in Sanskrit(your nitpicking OR about the nuances of its supposed meanings notwithstanding). And in any case, if it comes down to us having to choose one and only one label for it, it has to be Sanskrit. Not Hindi. For your info, Bharata is Skt., gaNa is Skt., and so is rAjya. All three are tatsamas in several indian languages and all of these 'several indian languages' have even borrowed the very concept of 'tatpurusha' lock, stock and barrel from Sanskrit. Sarvagnya 23:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I just said above that "gana" and "rajya" are both unmodified Sanskrit loanwords in Hindi. That makes them Sanskrit words first. Please don't repeat my own words to me and presume to inform me. All I am saying is (a) keep only the English, or (b) English and Hindi (as official languages), or (c) 23 languages, or (d) bag the "ganarajya" and simply keep the Bharat. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I repeat that I accept that "English and Hindi are India's 'languages of the union'" and as such have a position that marks them above the list of 23 'Eighth Schedule' languages. We could, on these grounds, state "Hindi: Bharat Ganarajya" (Bharat making it Hindi, not Sanskrit). Per official languages of India, parliamentary proceedings are in either Hindi or English, which means that the RoI has these two official languages. The 'Eighth Schedule' languages enjoy special recognition, but they are not 'official languages' in any meaningful sense as long as parliamentary proceedings are not permissible in these languages. But, in the same way,

In contrast, the constitution requires the authoritative text of all laws, including Parliamentary enactments and statutory instruments, to be in English ... also translated into Hindi, though the English text remains authoritative

In this sense, English is the single authoritative official language of the union, and it is perfectly permissible to leave the English name as the single official "local name". dab (𒁳) 09:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

English may be an official language of India, but it is certainly not alone in that status. Hindi is the other one. The other 21 were made official because of the hundreds of million people in India who speak them. The two, Hindi and English, were preserved in status as the official languages of the entire Union, therefore the most important ones for the entire country. Sarvagnya, I realize that Wikipedia is not an official gazette of the government of India; however, Wikipedia must present the facts and not the consequences of linguistical pride or prejudices, and the fact is that Hindi and English are the most important languages of in India because they have the status as the two official languages in the Union. Also, I can see that some people think that Bharat, and not Bharat Gan.arajya, is the official local name of India. Is there any reliable and authorative source to justify that? The CIA World Factbook (one of the most reliable sources on the web, if not the most reliable) states that the conventional local name with the Gan.arajya, and all the other websites that I visit state the long form of the local name with the Gan.arajya. Also, whether it inaccurately remains Bharat or whether it is correctly changed to Bharat Gan.arajya, there is one thing that is lacked. That is the language of it. The reader should at least know what language the phrase is in. Otherwise, it might as well be presumed that the language is one spoken by a tribe of Africa. Thank you. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 13:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree entirely with you Dab. My note above was for Sarvagyna, who seems to have a visceral dislike for me, and continues to wax illogical in his inimitable mix of half-digested jargon, misplaced metaphors, and slang. I am hardly pro-Hindi or anti-Sanskrit, the convenient categories that he likes to assign me to. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

English and Hindi are not the only official languages of the Union. Its used for easier communication. This will change when it becomes easier to translate to various Indian languages and one will see communication in Bengali between the central government and the state govt of West Bengal. This will be similar with all the states. It's only a matter of time before it happens. The official languages include all the languages recognized in the constitution of India. The official column must include all the languages including English and Hindi without any differentiation. One single language cannot be the official language of the Indian Union. It's all together. Chanakyathegreat 14:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

India or Republic of India ?

I have an even more basic questions. The current article begins with, "The Republic of India (Sanskrit: भारत गणराज्य Bhārata Gaṇarājya; see also other names), commonly known as India". Do we have any source which says that the "Republic of India" is the proper name, while "India" is the common name ?
Here is what Article 1 of the Indian Constitution has to say on the subject:

1. Name and territory of the Union.—(1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.

and the phrase "Republic of India" does not appear in any of its 395 article; more surprisingly yet, the word "republic" never reappears after being used in the preamble. Was the name changed to Republic of India by some later amendment ? Abecedare 16:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I did find that the CIA factbook, Britannica call "Republic of India" the long form and Official name respectively, but I am still curious to know if/how/where/when this name was adopted . Abecedare 05:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The name "Republic of India" has been used in the recitals of all laws ("Be it enacted by Parliament in the xxxth year of the Republic of India", see this very randomly chosen example) right from the start. This is also used in all treaties signed by India as in this example of a treaty with Sri Lanka. I don't know when it was formally adopted, but it is clearly the official name. -- Lexmercatoria 18:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

we have discussed this at length before. dab (𒁳) 13:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dab, my focus was different from that of the previous discussion. The basic question I had was: "When and how was 'Republic of India' adopted as the formal name for the (political entity) India, especially since Article 1 of the constitution names the political entity India, or Bharat ?" The answer to that specific question is still not available, but the links Lexmercatoria provided, along with the CIA factbook statement, do establish that 'Republic of India' is the formal name. So the issue, as far as the wikipedia article India is concerned, is resolved - although my curiosity about the original question remains piqued. Abecedare 23:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
you are right, I apologize. dab (𒁳) 16:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Population

The population of India is around the 1.1 billion, not 1.2 billion, the latter was written in the factscolumn on the right. --Robster1983 18:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I also changed the figures in the "Demographics" section. Also, since 1.1 billions is a bit too vague. I put 1.12 billion in both places (infobox and "Demographics" section). Any objections to this? Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 08:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Mass Media of India

Perhaps a paragraph about the Mass Media of India can be added at the end of the "Culture" section. Information about it can be taken from the Indian mass media article and the end of pg. 18 and the beginning of pg. 19 of this link. Please give your feedback on whether one should be added or not. Thank you. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 14:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree a line can be added--Knowledge Hegemony 16:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Official languages

At the moment, the "Official languages" section in the table lists most of the languages of the Eighth Schedule, except Bodo (which I guess was accidentally left out). I agree that only including Hindi and English does not reflect the real diversity of India, so in principle I agree with the idea of including more languages. But I don't think the Eighth Schedule is the correct basis for selecting the languages to be listed. The languages listed in the Eighth Schedule are not called "official languages" in the Constitution, the Official Languages Act, the Offical Languages Rules, or any other legal document, so calling them that is factually inaccurate. In addition some of them like Sanskrit don't have official status in any part of India, while other languages like Kokborok which have official status in individual states are not listed in the Eighth Schedule.

I think we can take three possible approaches:

  • We can list all languages that are used by any state as official languages. But this will create a practical problem because the list at Official languages of India is still not completely reliable. I have been trying to check it and correct the mistakes, but it is difficult to get access to State Acts for all states so it is likely to take a very long time.
  • We can change the entry to say: "Hindi and English at the Central level, various others at the State level."
I support this if at all a change is needed. KnowledgeHegemony 16:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • We can list the languages in the Eighth Schedule (as we have now, but adding Bodo), and add a clearer note. The list would then read:
"Hindi, English, Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Dogri, Gujarati, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithili, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santhali, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu (see note†)"
And the note would read:
"†Hindi and English are the official languages of the Union, the other 22 are represented on teh Official Language Commission and have other privileges. In addition, each State has its own official languages."

Or if any better ideas that anyone may come up with. Until we agree on something, we can keep it as it is, with all the languages of the Eighth Schedule listed, but I think we should try and make the wording more accurate. -- Lexmercatoria 16:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The best option I feel would be a somewhat complete list as explicated in Lexmercatoria's third point, with a clarifying note, perhaps in the footnotes, explaining the relative status of the languages and giving a reference. Only this can give the true representative status of the languages. Yanamad

All official languages of the Union must be listed starting with Assamese.Chanakyathegreat 16:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Consider that the Official languages of India consists of all languages recognized as such and not the official languages of the states. Not all official languages of the states are Official languages of the Union. The Official languages of the Union and Official languages of the state are two different things. and the perception that Hindi and English is the only Official languages of the Union is totally incorrect. For communication purposes any of these languages can be used. Hindi and English is part of it. English because of State of Nagaland. Chanakyathegreat 16:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Official names

Further information: Official names of India

(continued from above) alright, the question begins to transpire, are there even official names of the RoI in the 23 8th Schedule languages? Obviously, there will be names for India in these langauges, but they are only 'official' if there is an official version of the Indian Constitution in these languages. Into which languages has the constitution been translated, and where is the text? Why has nobody linked the government website hosting the constitution text? So far, we are only aware of the English version of the constitution, s:Constitution of India. We don't even have evidence of a Hindi version of the constitution, let alone one in the 21 remaining '8th Schedule' languages. Compare Switzerland: we give the name in the four national languages, and it goes without saying that there are respective versions of the Swiss Constitution, linked from that article, hosted at the authoritative admin.ch domain. It appears that the first thing we need to clean up is the Indian Constitution article before we get any further here. dab (𒁳) 10:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

so, it appears that the constitution is in English, with a Hindi translation [3]. No constitution in any of the remaining 21 languages. From this it follows that there are no official names other than in English and Hindi. Since the English constitution is the original, and the Hindi version its translation, the "local names" should be given in this order: "India, Bharat". dab (𒁳) 10:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
per article 1, the official name of the country is "India; Bharat" in English, and "Bhārat; Inḍiyā" in Hindi. End of story, anything else (such as the formal RoI used internationally) is either not "local", or not "official". Case closed I guess. dab (𒁳) 11:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Federalism in India does funny things to the official language. Hindi as the "official language of the union" is only official in dealings with the central government. At the state level, Hindi has absolutely no status at all unless the state in question adopts Hindi as its official language. So in Kerala, as an example, no laws or official documents are published in Hindi and Hindi is not used in government work (except in central government offices). If you need to deal with the Government of Kerala, you have to do so in Malayalam or English. I don't know how this compares to the situation in the cantons of Switzerland, but this is the actual reason many people don't think Hindi should have a special status on this article. Currency notes in India have the denomination listed in all 23 languages of the Eighth Schedule.
"Republic of India" is not just used internationally, it is also used domestically, among other things on every law passed by Parliament and every regulation made under those laws, as I pointed out in my reply to Abecedare.
I only got involved in the discussion because people had incorrect assumptions about the legal status of various languages and names, which I wanted to correct. I am not going to agitating for one solution or another, but I would like the text to correctly reflect Indian law. I think the present version does this quite well. -- Lexmercatoria 11:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Lex, thanks for your comment. Given your background in law(right?), your comments are timely. I also just want to add that even in the Supreme court, it is English that reigns. Not Hindi. And in the High Courts, it is English once again along with the official language of the state in question. Your example of Kerala reminds me of a news item from some time ago when somebody(dont remember who) wrote a letter in Hindi to Karunakaran, the then Kerala CM and Karunakaran wrote back in Malayalam. Needless to say, the English translation of the original letter in Hindi was delivered post-haste to the Kerala CM's office. A similar thing happened between the former Karnataka CM S M Krishna and Uma Bharati. Krishna in this case, if I remember correctly, just sent the mail back to Uma Bharati. Then we have the provision where members of parliament are allowed to use their own languages(from a set of nine or ten languages, I believe). Sarvagnya 11:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am a lawyer (hence my user name). I rewrote the Official languages of India article some time ago, I've tried to get it to a state where it accurately explains the very complicated situation in relation to the official use of language in India. As I hope it shows, the status of Hindi and other languages is not what people often assume it to be. The official languages of the Union don't have a national status in the way languages do elsewhere, which I think is a rather important point to be borne in mind. -- Lexmercatoria 17:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the languages in which the Constitution of India exists: the Constitution was translated into all languages of the original Eighth Schedule. The resolution passed by the Constituent Assembly authorising the preparation of the Hindi translation also authorised "a translation into such other Indian languages as the President may think fit." Here is the exact text:
"Resolved that the President be authorised and requested,to take necessary steps to have a translation of the Constitution prepared in Hindi and to have it published under his authority before January 26. 1950 and also to arrange for the preparation and publication of the translation of the Constitution in such other major languages of India as he deems fit."[4]
The languages initially selected were those in the Eighth Schedule. I have no idea if translations have been prepared in the languages subsequently added to the Eighth Schedule, but I would expect that they eventually will be if they don't already exist. The Indian government is very bad at putting things online, so it's dangerous to draw conclusions from the fact that they're not on the Government's website. -- Lexmercatoria 17:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

well, of course, as soon as we have evidence that the constitution has been authoritatively translated into other languages, we can add the names figuring in those. Since this is the article on the union, I suggest we only need to bother with union-wide standards; obviously, the official names of individual states should be given in the official languages of the respective states. Thus, Tamil Nadu rightly gives the name in Tamil, obviously. I don't know about "Republic of India". If it's not in the constitution, that's at best a convention, not an officially sanctioned name of the state. And, sheesh, we're not expecting live video feeds of all parliamentary sessions, but these days it should not be asking too much of the government of a major country and alleged "great power" to put online 23 pathetic pdf files. dab (𒁳) 21:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

ok. here's evidence that there is atleast a Kannada version of the constitution. This article doesnt say anything about editions in other languages. But apparently, it is the 'The Directorate of Translations under the Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs' that is responsible for these translations. Googling for them might help us find something. Also here's the Official language act of Karnataka. I'd imagine that atleast half the country(all the southern states and bengal+some NE states for sure) would be following Acts similar to this. Lex, can you take a look at it and break up the nuances if any for us. Sarvagnya 22:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

National anthem / national song

I've readded "Vande mataram" in the infobox. The statement of the Chair to the Constituent Assembly which led to the adoption of Jana Gana Mana also said:

"[T]he song Vande Mataram, which has played a historic part in the struggle for Indian freedom, shall be honoured equally with Jana Gana Mana and shall have equal status with it."[5]

It has equal status, which means to mention only Jana Gana Mana without mentioning Vande Mataram misstates the law. -- Lexmercatoria 17:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a footnote can be added to explain this unique situation of having a national anthem and also a national song. The quote you gave above can be used there ... --Ragib 17:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that can be done. Also, perhaps a line can be added before the song (like there is between every other item in the infobox). Also, if, for the national anthem, it is written only "Anthem," for the national song, it should also only be written "Song"; perhaps the opposite can also be done (write "National anthem" and "National song.") All this can (and should) be done in order to main consistency. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 18:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
That sounds perfectly fine. I actually wanted to add a footnote, but I couldn't figure out how to put a footnote into the infobox. -- Lexmercatoria 18:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Reference added.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but what about the consistency point? Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 16:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Original Research?

To Lexmercatoria and others, I am a little concerned that what is unfolding here is affecting the India page and the Official languages of India page in ways that might constitute original research. Both pages now declare all 23 languages to be official languages, with footnotes accompanying Hindi and English explaining their official status at the federal level. For example the first two sentences in the Official languages of India page reads:

This subtle equalizing of the official languages of the various states with the official languages of the union is contrary to how other tertiary sources like Britannica and Encarta treat the subject. Here is Britannica describing the official languages of some multi-lingual nations in their respective "infoboxes," including India (at the end). (* denotes a footnote, with the note itself in parentheses.)

  • Kazakhstan. Official Language: Kazhak*. (*Russian has equal status with Kazakh at state-owned organizations and bodies of local government.)
  • South Africa. Official Languages: *. (* Afrikaans; English; Ndebele; Pedi (North Sotho); Sotho (South Sotho); Swazi; Tsonga; Tswana (West Sotho); Venda; Xhosa; Zulu.)
  • Algeria. Offical Language: Arabic*. (* The Berber language, Tamazight, became a national language in April 2002).
  • Canada. Official Languages: English, French.
  • Papua New Guinea. Official Languages: English*. (* The national languages are English, Tok Pisin (English Creole), and Motu.)
  • New Zealand. Official Languages: English; Maori.
  • United States. Official Language: None.
  • United Kingdom. Official Language: English; both English and Welsh in Wales.
  • Switzerland. Official Languages: French; German; Italian; Romansh (locally).
  • Sri Lanka. Official Languages: Sinhala, Tamil.* (*English has official status as “the link language” between Sinhala and Tamil.)
  • Georgia. Official Languages: Georgian*. (*Locally Abkhazian, in Abkhazia.)
  • Peru. Official Languages: Spanish; Quechua (locally); Aymara (locally)
  • Belgium. Official Languages: Dutch; French; German
  • India. Official Languages: Hindi; English.

Notice that in the sample above various permutations and combinations of languages and footnotes are described. Clearly, the editors at Britannica are aware of the complexities involved in such descriptions; nonetheless, for India, they choose: Hindi; English. There must be a good reason for this. The Britannica India page is written by some of the world's best-known India experts, including, Joseph E. Schwartzberg, Romila Thapar, Muzaffar Alam, and Stanley Wolpert, who can hardly be described as Hindi protagonists. It is hard to believe that this choice of Hindi and English (as official languages in the infobox) is accidental.

Here is how Encarta describes the official languages in its version of the India infobox:

Similarly, with the names:

  • Britannica: Official Name: Bharat (Hindi); Republic of India (English)
  • Encarta: India, officially Republic of India (Hindi: Bharat)

Both encyclopedias, give a special status to Hindi and English as official federal languages, above that of the official state languages. In contrast, Wikipedia has moved the description of this special status either to footnotes (as in the India page) or to a subordinate sentence structures (as in the Official languages of India page (second sentence, lead)). In so doing, Wikipedia is now subtly implying a devolution of (the relations between) the official languages of India that, however welcome, may not exist in practice. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what Britannica or Encarta says in this matter, I think an exact, accurate quote from the Constitution of India will triumph all other possible sources. So, just quote the appropriate section from there, and we'll be done. If Britannica or Encarta differ from the CoI, then they are just being inaccurate.
Since I don't know which section of the CoI handles this, perhaps someone who does should check this out. --Ragib 08:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Without a doubt, they are a figment of original research. There has been a constant effort by editors to undermine the fact that Hindi and English are the official languages of the Union, that is, India.
According to the information by Department of Official Language (DOL) , official language invariably pertains to Hindi. According to its official website- www.rajbhasha.gov.in. Hindi withholds special importance along with English. Do read this OFFICIAL LANGUAGE POLICY OF THE UNION and CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS to know more. The annual programme by Department of Official Language FOR TRANSACTING THE OFFICIAL WORK OF THE UNION IN HINDI 2007-2008 states the provisions regarding official importance and usage of Hindi.
Here is text from the Constitution of India stating clearly the Official language of the Union.
-- KnowledgeHegemony 10:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm just curious as to why you are citing the original 1950 version ... this has obviously gone through amendments added as Schedules. Per Schedule 8 [6], Article 344 (1) and Article 351 have been amended to include at least 18 other languages, and that supersedes the version you quoted above. --Ragib 10:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Does that mean that Hindi is the official language and that English is another official language to be used for subsidereal translational purposes? Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 10:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ragib, Please note that Eighth Schedule was in reference to regional and classical languages it does not apply to the Union as a whole. Article 343- Official language of the Union is what we are talking about the one related to the Union of India.

Article 343
Official language of the Union-
(1) The official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devnagari script. The form of numerals to be used for the official purposes of the Union shall be the international form of Indian numerals.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (1), for a period of fifteen years from the commencement of this Constitution, the English language shall continue to be used for all the official purposes of the Union for which it was being used immediately before such commencement:

Provided that the President may, during the said period, by order authorise the use of the Hindi language in addition to the English language and of the Devnagari form of numerals in addition to the internationl form of Indian numerals for any of the official purposes of the Union.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in this article, Parliament may be law provide for the use, after the said period of fifteen years, of-

(a) the English language, or
(b) the Devnagari form of numerals,

for such purposes as may be specified in the law.

-- KnowledgeHegemony 13:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

To Ragib, It seems to me that there is no need to go to the Constitution and look for references to "official languages." Those are already discussed (as mentioned by K-H above) on the "Official Language Policy" page of the Government of India. The page is pretty complete and its sidebars include:
India has the 2nd largets army accordring to http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-countries-with-largest-armies-map.html
Going to the constitution (and its amendments) to look for exact and accurate quotations invariably leads to questions of meaning, intent, and original intent—all trapdoors to a bottomless quest. In addition, both Britannica and Encarta (especially the former) are widely respected tertiary sources and they agree on the question of "official languages" for India. That needs to be taken seriously. I am happy to look at secondary sources all well, but to go to the primary sources and parse intent is problematic. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Universe=atom, your deduction is quite true. I would want all involved to read this Official language National Portal of India. Reading this and the provisions we can deduce the fact that the phrase- "Official language" when used in context to the Union of India as a whole refers only to Hindi and English and not all the languages recognised by the Constitution. Everywhere the word language in Official Language is not plural with a suffix 's' and mostly referring to Hindi. Eg.Official Language Resolution, Department of Official Language.

KnowledgeHegemony 14:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • There is no OR here. Britannica and Encarta may be respected sources but they are not the final word on anything. Both have been known and shown to have mistakes. If we have the luxury of having access to primary and secondary sources, then we should be making use of that to write a more accurate account of the situation. The problem we are having here is not of OR. It is one of horribly incorrect assumptions that people have of Hindi's status. Even until a few weeks back, KH for example, thought and believed that Hindi was the national language and I am sure he is/was not an exception. If we look, I am sure we will find 'respectable' tertiary sources which make a mention India's 'national' language/s; while in fact, India doesnt even have anything called a 'national' language. Even NCERT was sued by a Kerala professor and they had to change their textbooks which until then mentioned that Hindi was the "national" language.
  • As for 'official language of the Union', once again people seek to erroneously equate it to "national" language. That is original research. Official language of the union is NOT sacrosanct. It is not like the "national" flag or the "national" anthem which are non-negotiable wherever you go in the country. "Official language of the union" on the other hand is strictly for dealings with the central government and that too only if you choose to. I am a citizen of India and nobody can force me to use Hindi at any level. Even with the union govt., I can make do with English. I may be 'forced' to use Hindi only at the state-level, say, if I was in a state like Bihar or something where Hindi, by virtue of being the official language of the "state" becomes non-negotiable.
  • Most use of Hindi that we see, is because of the Indian government's stated goal(read the constitution) of "increasing/encouraging use of hindi in central government undertakings". This is a fact and I dont mind mentioning the stepmotherly attitude of the Indian govt., in giving Hindi special treatment though the constitution itself doesnt afford Hindi much. I remember that even the ads that the govt., would air on Doordarshan years ago, would only make a case for Hindi and state that "Hindi is best suited to be "national" language" but would clearly stop short of claiming that Hindi was the "national" language. If there is one language from which there is no escape for an Indian citizen, atleast when one reaches the supreme court, it is English. It probably is one of the biggest hoaxes of modern times that Hindi is the "national" language of India and there is no reason we should be affording such hoaxes any room on wikipedia in any shape or form. Sarvagnya 14:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No one (now) is talking about national languages, just "official languages." Nothing is implied in this "official status" about Indian culture. The official status is just what has been decided by the governments of the day to be their languages of communication etc. I am sure the Wikipedia article can state that in a footnote.

As for sources, here is what Wikipedia says about Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources:

  1. Primary Sources: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source."
  2. Secondary Sources: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources."
  3. Tertiary Sources: "Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. For example, articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica and encyclopedias of similar quality can be regarded as reliable secondary sources instead of tertiary ones." (Note that the entire India page in Britannica, including all its sections, is signed by experts.)

So far I have not seen any reading of primary sources buttressed by reliable secondary sources. As I mentioned above, I will be adding secondary sources later today. The ones I have found seem to support the special status of Hindi and English as official languages of the Union. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources:

I have collected quotes from 21 secondary sources in the collapsible box below.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Last updated: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Though several of these are applicable (particularly #8), others are off-topic (e.g., #9, which discusses a proposal, not law). Saravask 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reduced the secondary sources to 15 focused ones in the collapsible box below.

Thanks. Saravask 00:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion (continued)

  • Except the "...even while identifying Hindi as the official language of India..." part, the rest of the above passage is irrelevant to the discussion here. So, stop filling pages and wasting people's time. As for the 'matter-of-fact' claim that the author makes, it is a patently loose description of reality(understandable, considering that the subject of her discussion there is totally different). For that matter, I am sure that if you dig, you'll find plenty of secondary and tertiary sources even claim that Hindi is the "national" language, while in fact, the constitution clearly and conspicuously steers clear of even mentioning that word. The reality is far more nuanced as we have seen and it is in cases like this that we have to use primary sources(if available) to corroborate info from secondary and tertiary sources.
  • The fact of the matter is that, not only is "official language of the Union" not the same as "national" language, but, there is also no evidence to believe that it is even close. The "official language of the union" only means that hindi(along with english) is to be used in the transactions of the central govt. And even in these 'transactions' it is "Hindi only", "Hindi and English" or "English only" as the case may be. For example, states like Karnataka, TN, Andhra, Kerala etc., carry out all their transactions with the central govt., in English. A citizen of these states in turn uses Kannada(in case of Ktaka) with the state govt., and is free to use English with the babus in Delhi. The supreme court which is above(so to speak) the central govt., uses English. The "Constitution" which is 'above' the Supreme Court is in English with translations in several languages(including one in Hindi).
As an aside, the second half is indeed ironical. While one reading of it may suggest that Hindi piggybacked(unfairly) on Sanskrit's fair name, some others might lament that 'kommunal Porces' did afterall, manage to find Sanskrit a backdoor. Sarvagnya 19:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
You haven't produced a single reliable secondary source. You are now asserting that your claim needs "primary sources (if available)," while at the same time disparaging the secondary sources that disagree with you. Sumati Ramaswami, BTW, is a very careful historian of South Asia, one not given to "patently loose descriptions of reality" as you claim. The subject of the paper is not "totally different," as you again claim; the paper is a discussion of the history of the failed decade-long (1947-1957) attempt to make Sanskrit the official language of India and is very much linked to the language that eventually won out, namely Hindi. Almost every page of the paper discusses this issue. I have now increased the number of quotes from the paper to two and also moved the extended quote to a collapsible box. (The only reason I added the extended quote was to assure people that the author is not a Hindi protagonist.) I have no idea what you are alluding to in your aside, but since it is an aside and irrelevant to the discussion on hand, I will not dwell on it. Meanwhile, I will keep adding reliable secondary citations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Sumathi Ramaswamy is not news to me. I am fully aware of her scholarship and I have myself cited from her other works in a couple of articles that I have edited in the past. I have also read her books and will be citing her in future also. That I am 'disparaging' her scholarship, is, but a figment of your imagination.
She may have deliberated in her paper about Sanskrit's failed nom, but she doesnt delve into the nuances of what the constitution says and what it really means. And if you want secondary sources, just google. This piece from the Tribune first first weasels about the 1950 legislation and then declares - ...even more than half a century after being declared a national language, Hindi has not only not been given its due status but is also looked down upon by the elite... as if nothing changed since then. I am sure you'll find more on similar lines. As for sources like Britannica, Encarta etc., I dont think they have articles on the lines of Official languages of India etc.,. But we do. And all the content in this article is supposed to be a summary of articles that are downstream. We cant write something in the 'downstream' article and change its meaning when we summarise it here. The Indian govt gives preferential treatment(like in PSUs, railway booking counters, nationalised banks etc.,) to Hindi because it is one of its 'stated goals'. You cant point to that, confuse issues and conclude that Hindi is some sort of quasi-national language. It is not. There was a time in wikipedia when every second India related article had Hindi transliterations simply because Hindi was India's 'national language'(sic)! And I cleaned up much of the mess braving hordes and hordes of Hindi nationalists. You werent even around then. So dont give me this nonsense that I do what I do because I have a 'visceral' dislike for you or that I am anti hindi or that I disparage sources that disagree with me. Once again, SR isnt even discussing what we are discussing. Our discussion here starts off where her's ends. Sarvagnya 23:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
And the crux of the matter here is SR's reading of "...official language of the union.." as "official language of India/country". This is rather simplistic and flawed when you take a look at what the constitution actually says. If you read the constitution, it is clear that what is meant by the word "Union" is the "Union government" and not the country. And the Government of India is NOT the country. It is only a part of the country. Sarvagnya 00:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you specify where Union is the Union Government and not the Union of India. --KnowledgeHegemony 09:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Please read this and don't call it a hoax and term it one of the greatest hoaxes - http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p01001.html
  1. Line 1:Name and territory of the "UNION":-
Clearly Union means the Country and not the Union Government.
Note: Just because you don't like a fact its not a hoax. The Constitution, CIA, Brittanica etc are not Hoaxes, neither are they Hindi fundmentalists.--KnowledgeHegemony 09:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Explain this. KnowledgeHegemony 09:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As it stands, Hindi and English are the official languages of the federation. They are the official languages of India, to the extent the central government is the Government of India. However, they are not the sole official languages of India, to the extent the Government of India is not the only government body that is involved in the administration of India. I really don't know how to make this clearer. At any rate, because of this, the term "official language" has a lot of nuances in relation to India, and it seems to me that an encyclopaedic article which is devoted to the sole topic of the official languages of India (as opposed to a throwaway sentence in a larger article) needs to describe this. If you disagree, you can feel free to revert that article to this version.
  • As far as the Eighth Schedule is concerned, if you look further up this page, you'll see that I started out by questioning whether it was appropriate to list the languages in the Eighth Schedule as the official languages in the box. See here. Almost nobody responded to that question. If people feel that "official languages" for the purpose of this article ought to only be Hindi and English, I'm not going to stand in your way - it was one of the options I suggested, for heaven's sake. But please understand the fact that you're taking a decision on what meaning you want to attach to the term "official language", that that is not the only meaning the term has as a matter of Indian law, and please be sure that you are convinced you have good reasons for taking that decision.
For the record, Hindi is my mother tongue (to the extent someone who grew up in South Bombay has a mother tongue).-- Lexmercatoria 21:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
No one has said that you are anti-Hindi; at least I haven't. What I said above was simply that citing primary sources (more than a few times) without supportive secondary sources constitutes original research (according to how WP defines original research). The Official languages of India page has 46 citations of primary sources and only one of a secondary source. If the secondary sources don't exist, then you should really be writing a paper for a constitutional law (or law and linguistics) journal, and if they do, you should cite them. Wikipedia is very clear on this, as I have mentioned above. I will reply to your other points later. I don't necessarily disagree with them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
That is, bluntly put, asking the impossible. No journal is going to accept a paper which does nothing more than restate what the law self-evidently says. Anyway, if that is what Wikipedia's policies require, there isn't very much I can do about it. I guess I finally understand why articles which touch on issues of Indian law are so utterly abysmal, and so frequently get things wrong. -- Lexmercatoria 23:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it can't be that self-evident if it is not out there anywhere. At least you could write a survey article summarizing the state of affairs. For the record, the little that I have read of your posts above, I have found you to be a considerate and objective editor (in contrast to others with inscrutable compulsions); however, I am a little troubled by your words "... you're taking a decision on what meaning you want to attach to the term "official language", that that is not the only meaning the term has as a matter of Indian law, and please be sure that you are convinced you have good reasons for taking that decision." My understanding of WP policy is that we don't make those decisions; we simply follow precedence to the extent we can find it in the secondary sources. (Encyclopedia writing is dumb to that extent.) That is why I produced the 16 secondary source citations above. I think if Britannica, Encarta, the UN, UNESCO, the Library of Congress, US State Department, the British Foreign Office, etc. think that (in the context of a profile or information box) Hindi and English, as official languages of the union, deserve precedence over the other 21 official languages recognized by the constitution, then we need to take that precedence seriously. That is all I am saying. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
In India, law is still regarded as something of a trade, so there is a whole lot of stuff that all lawyers "know", which you won't find in the literature. In general, the moment you start dealing with delegated legislation, you stop finding secondary sources unless the subject is tax law.
The point I was trying to make is that, "official language" has these manifold meanings in law, which we need to take note of. I am still very new to Wikipedia, and I had no idea the rules were this strict about primary sources - my impression was that any sort of source was fine, so I was basically expecting to just have to point to sections, paragraphs, and so on to fix the many problems we have in articles where Indian law is relevant. Secondary sources frequently get things wrong, and I've seen so many incorrect treatments of India's language policy written by non-lawyers it makes mne want to tear my hair out. I suppose I'll just need some time to figure out how to work with the rules about primary and secondary sources. -- Lexmercatoria 00:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I see. Yes, it does present a dilemma; however, it is well worth the wait for thinking it through, as you propose. If you need to run something by me, I am happy to help. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I don't detect that big a gulf between what Lex and F&F are claiming, and this may just be an instance of talking past each other. As far as I understand:

  • Lex is right as to the interpretation of English and Hindi as "official languages of the union" as laid out in the Indian constitution and the Official Language Act. (I know these are primary sources, that cannot be the sole basis for writing a wikipedia article, but that does not mean that I cannot use them to come to my own conclusion as long as that conclusion is voiced on talk pages)
  • F&F is right that English and Hindi are referred to as "Official languages of India" by well-established secondary sources. This does give the two languages a "distinctive" status. Notre I am using the word "distinctive" with care and not implying any linguistic superiority

The above statements are simply facts (correct me if I am wrong here!) and the only point of contention (as far as the India article is concerned), is whether the "distinctive" status accorded to English and Hindi by the GOI should mean that the wikipedia article list the name of the country in the two languages or not ? This brings is back to the options enumerated by Dab, which I relist here:

  • (a) just put the English term, since this is en-wiki, and English is a "language of the union"
  • (b) give both English and Hindi as "local" names, since these are the two "languages of the union" (fine with me, but we'll get no end of trouble from the non-Hindi Indian editors)
  • (c) follow MoS to the letter and give the 1,652 "local names" (huh)
  • (d) be semi-reasonable and give only the 22 languages of the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution
  • (e) give "Bharat" as the "local" name in "Standard Average Indian" without specifying which language this is.
  • (f) keeping it simple, ignoring this discussion, and revert to the old version without switching on our brains

Personally I can live with options (a), (b) and (e) - but this is a matter of editorial judgement and not simply stating facts. Abecedare 01:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposals

Proposal 1: Official Languages: I have now finished compiling the secondary sources (for official languages) for the purposes of this article. See here for the extended quotes. In light of the references, especially 19 by B. Mallikarjun, Academic Secretary, Central Institute of Indian Languages, (Manasagangothri, Mysore 570006, India), author of Language Use in Administration and National Integration, Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages, 1986, and an expert of the subject and reference 21 by David Laitin, Watkins Professor of Political Science at Stanford, and another expert on the subject, I feel that Hindi (and to lesser extent English) has had a special position in language policy in India from well before independence, and is reflected so in the constitution. This needs to be acknowledged explicitly (as all 21 references do) both in the information box and in the demographics section of the India page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think something along the lines of the British Foreign Office would be reasonable: "The official language of India is Hindi written in the Devanagari script. English has official status an 'associate language'. In addition, there are 21 official languages recognized by the constitution: Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Dogri, Gujarati, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithili, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santali, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu?" Of course, it will have to be made more compact for the information box. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
PS None of the 16 secondary sources I cite above make a distinction between India and the Union of India (with the latter identified with the (Federal) Government of India) and I don't see why Wikipedia should either. In other words, there is no need (at least in the India article) to say that Hindi is the official language only of the "union," but not of India. That distinction (buttressed by secondary sources) could belong to the Official languages of India page, but does not belong to the India page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 2: First sentence of the India page (Names): There is a pretty good correspondence between the list of multilingual nations and their official languages (from Britannica) that I produced here and their names in Wikipedia (as displayed in the first sentence of their country pages). See: Kazakhstan, Algeria, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Switzerland, and Georgia. In light of this, the first sentence of the India page should read: "India (Hindi Bhārat; see also other names), officially the Republic of India, is a sovereign country in South Asia." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion (continued)

Questions to Lexmercatoria :
  1. Isn't the 8th Schedule mainly concerned with 'regional' and 'classical' languages and not the Union as a whole and that explains why English is not included in it while Hindi is(since Hindi is also the state language of Himachal Pradesh, UP, MP, Bihar, Rajasthan, Uttarkhand...etc.)
  2. Hence is it correct to refer to the 8th schedule like it is being used presently since English a 'associate language' of the Union is not included?
  3. Is it wrong to mention - "Hindi is the principal official language along with English which is used a an 'associate' language of the Union. The Government also recognises 21 other languages" as per the Eighth schedule of its Constitution .(the quoted version is of World Book Encyclopedia(India, languages of) ISBN: 0-7166-6696-0.--KnowledgeHegemony 13:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
1. From the point of view of the Constitution, the Eighth Schedule is principally a list of languages whose speakers will input into the manner in which Hindi is developed - which makes it obvious as to why English isn't included. Since then, it's acquired an additional, extra-constitutional significance, described in the official languages article.
2. For the reasons I explained several days back, I'm not entirely convinced the Eighth Schedule is the appropriate source for listing India's "official" languages.
3. The term "associate" official language is not used in Indian law. The phrase used is "subsidiary official language." Most encyclopaedias and non-legal sources totally misunderstand the significance of the Eighth Schedule, and to say that the Government "recognises 21 other languages" is plain wrong - but I don't know any way to demonstrate this which doesn't involve what Wikipedia calls original research, so I guess for now we'll just have to live with the law being misstated both here and in the "official languages" article. -- Lexmercatoria 22:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
To Lexmercatoria: OK, How about "The official language of India is Hindi written in the Devanagari script. English has status as a 'subsidiary official language'. In addition, there are 21 languages recognized by the constitution: Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Dogri, Gujarati, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithili, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santali, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
PS Here, BTW, (not for you Lex, but for others), is a good site Constitution of India: Provisions Relating to Languages Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
F&F good site just what the doc prescribed. BTW I would like to see views on F&F's proposal to the first line of the article. KnowledgeHegemony 12:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be a fairly accurate statement of the law. Are you thinking of it for this article or the official languages article? -- Lexmercatoria 22:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
PS. Lex, I think, KH is referring to proposal 2 above. (Both proposals apply to the India page, not Official languages of India page.) I have now changed the language of proposal 1 (in light of your comments above). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

<deindent>
F&F, I assume you are proposing the text for the demographics section, right ? If so, perhaps we can blend in both the official status and demographic information into the same set of sentences. Something along the following lines:

Proposal 1 (v3.0)
Hindi is spoken by around 40% of the Indian population, and is the official language of India. English, which is widely used in business and administration, has the status of a 'subsidiary official language'. The constitution also recognizes in particular 21 other languages that are widely spoken or have a classical status.

  • The rough 40% statistic is from memory. I can look up the exact census information.
  • I don't think listing 21 languages serves the reader of this article who will most likely brush over the list. So I would prefer linking to the relevant article instead.
  • The above text will need copyediting and will need to be blended in with the remainder of the 2nd paragraph of the Demographics section.

My main motivation for proposing a change from F&F's v2.0, is that IMO the details of the official language status is just not important enough for this article to devote a whole paragraph to (think of all the differences between states and union territories that we gloss over). So we should try to make the information as unobtrusive as possible, while maintaining accuracy. Abecedare 01:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Abecedare, your version (Proposal 1 (v3.0) is great! One minor point: do we need the "in particular?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the infobox? Should that too read: "Hindi (official language), English (subsidiary official language) and 21 other languages"? or should we list the 21 languages there? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

this discussion is a bit over the top at this point. Keep in mind: the largest five languages account for >70% of native speakers, the largest ten for >90% (this is not all that different from Switzerland, where the largest ten account for ca. 97%). Keep it brief. "Hindi, English, other" should do. dab (𒁳) 10:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Both seem fine to me, but can we simply say "Hindi is the most widely-spoken language in India, and is the official language of India..." The figure of 40% of the population includes the 22% of us who speak Hindi proper as our mother tongue and another 20% or so who speak one of the "Hindi languages", which include things like Rajasthani whose status as Hindi is questionable (I believe Rajasthan treats it as a separate language) and Maithili which is now constitutionally recognised as a separate language. See this detailed PDF from the census departament. "Most widely spoken" has the added advantage of taking second language speakers into account. It's not a major issue for me, so if others feel the 40% figure is better, I'm fine with it. -- Lexmercatoria 14:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Lex, Your revision sounds great. (And Abecedare, in any case, wasn't sure about the 40%). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
are we sure about the 40%? List of Indian languages by number of native speakers gives 40% Hindi first language Hindi speakers. But strangely the numbers given add up to some 170%, so that there seem to be a significant number of people with two or more "first languages". dab (𒁳) 14:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is where I apparently remembered the 40% from [7]. The numbers add up to 100%, so I guess they data refers to native language; the only downside is that the data is 16 year old. One advantage of mentioning the exact stat. is that most non-Indian (non-Swiss :-) ) readers will not expect a country's "official language" to be native to less than half the population, and therefore the data point is of interest. However, again, this is not the focus of the article and saying "most widely spoken" is also fine with me. Would someone like to take a stab at adding these sentences to the main article so that they read well with the rest of the paragraph ? Abecedare 18:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Off-topic clarification: Swiss German is still spoken by more than half of the population of Switzerland. I had always thought that German, French, Italian and Romansh accounted for more than 99% of the Swiss people. Anyway, I think Fowler has added your proposal to the page. GizzaDiscuss © 02:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, the Swiss bit was more a light-hearted reference to Dab than to the landlocked European nation !
I am happy with the edit that F&F made to the page [8]. A couple of quick notes though, (1) is there a way to avoid using the word widely in three consecutive sentences ? (2) it would be a good idea to add a reference for Hindi and English's status, before someone disputes the change or add a {{cn}} tag. Cheers. Abecedare 03:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the "widleys" too, but was too tired to do anything about it. I have now fixed it. Let me know if there are any problems. I removed "widely" altogether, since it implies that the language has wide geographic distribution (which, whether accurate or not, might bring up more objections or requests for citations). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Continued (more)

Okay, now that the demographics section is fixed what about the infobox(concerns regarding wrong use of 8th schedule) and the first line of the articleKnowledgeHegemony 06:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)?

For the infobox, there seems to be some agreement (Dab, Lex, F&f, K-H, ?) that it is best to keep it short, along the lines of:
Proposal 3: Infobox: Official Languages: Hindi[1], English, [2] others.
  1. ^ Official language of the union.
  2. ^ Subsidiary official language of the union.
As for the first line of the article, I think the wording of proposal 2 above is adequate for me, "India (Hindi Bhārat; see also other names), officially the Republic of India, is a sovereign country in South Asia." I have explained my reasons there. I think that there is adequate evidence (see here) that Hindi, among all Indian languages, has special status in the Constitution of India, and India's Hindi appellation belongs to the first sentence of its Wikipedia page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Fowler&fowler's proposal although I believe that the Devanagari script should be juxtaposed with Bharat in accordance with Article 343 of the Constitution of India:
In light of this fact, the modified form of Proposal Two would read as follows: "India (Hindi: भारत Bhārat; see also other names), officially the Republic of India, is a sovereign country in South Asia." I hope this helps. Thanks to everyone who researched this topic. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think there is any need for the Devanagari script. The scripts are there in the "other names". Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Fowler&fowler, I respect your opinion but do not agree with it. In India, Hindi is not official in the Roman script but in the Devanagari script. Since everything here is being aligned with the official positions of countries, it would only be correct if we gave the name Bharat in Devanagari. Please refer to articles of other countries which are all aligned with my position (i.e. Afghanistan, Japan, Lebanon, etc.) If you decide not to accept this modification to your proposal, I would need to offer my version as an entirely different proposal. Please let me know your feelings on the issue. With warm regards, AnupamTalk 01:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, upon further reflection, I've changed my mind. I support your version (on account of the statement "Hindi in the Devanagari script" in the constitution). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind acceptance. Thus far, how many are aligned with proposal? Thanks in advance, AnupamTalk 03:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Anupam's proposed version would be my first choice too. Abecedare 03:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Anupam's version gives me nothing to object. I support it too. KnowledgeHegemony 16:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Give me one good reason why should we insist on keeping the official languages section brief when we have given the option to "hide" the list. The list says "Hindi and English are the official languages of the union" which summarizes so called special treatment by our constitution. The "hide" option there actually hides the list making the infobox short, in case you didn't notice. Gnanapiti 21:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Hindi has special status in the constitution. I consulted with an expert who in turn provided me with citations of two experts. According to one of them, B. Mallikarjuna, Academic Secretary of the Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore, "Hindi in Devanagari script and the international form of Indian numerals form the Official language of the Union. Among the Indian languages, Hindi is the most highly empowered language which constitutionally/legally has multiple status - an official language of the Union; official language of 13 states and union territories; the major regional language in 9 states where it is a majority language, and an important minority language in 18 states and union territories. Also it is a language of deliberations of the Parliament of India and state legislatures in the states in which it is recognized as an official language. Apart from this, the Constitution also provides that, with mutual consent, any two states or the states and the Union can use it as a language for their inter- communication. It is the majority language of the country and also a Scheduled Language since it is in the VIIIth Schedule of the Constitution. It is the only language about whose development the Constitution has given direction, and hence it has the constitutional right for development." English is the "subsidiary official language." The order is Hindi, English and not English, Hindi (as you seem to revert to; it is not alphabetical). The other language are not official languages of India, but Schedule VII languages, which, as Lex has remarked many times above, provide input into how Hindi is to develop further. You are welcome to hide the other twenty one schedule 8 languages, but Hindi and English are separate; the link others does precisely that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The fact that the Indian govt., has some special provisions for Hindi doesnt mean that we should accord special treatment to it on wikipedia(that explains the alphabetical ordering). And even with the special treatment accorded, there's many an if an but. Quite unlike an intuitive understanding of the phrase "Official language of the Union", Hindi's status is not one of unqualified, all pervasive nature. There is far too much fine print involved there for us to go into in this article and therefore listing the remaining "Official languages of the states" helps to put things in perspective. And in any case, they are all wrapped in a collapsible box and not taking up space(if somebody can make the box "collapsed" by default, it would be great). Just mentioning English and Hindi is not adhering to NPOV. Sarvagnya 23:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • And in any case, it is English and not Hindi that has a pre-eminent position across spheres of administration, judiciary, constitution etc., not to mention business, industry and daily life. Majority of the states use English to communicate with the union government and circumvent the need for Hindi. The highest court of the land uses English. The constitution itself is written in English - not Hindi. An overwhelming majority of the states(except the Ups and Bihars) use English to communicate among themselves. Even in public sector undertakings, Hindi is 'encouraged' but English is non-negotiable. Sarvagnya 23:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
We are not talking about "language and society," but rather about "official languages," which, for better or worse, are determined by legislations of governments (or at least by constitutional changes made by governments). For this reason, the United States infobox's "official language" slot, if it had one, would have to be left blank (or say "none"), even though English is the predominant language of the country. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
"..We are not talking about "language and society,..." - And who said we are?! Take your straw man arguments and tangential babble elsewhere. Sarvagnya 20:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
English in "administration, judiciary, constitution, ... business, industry and daily life!" What is that if not language and society? And who gave those examples Sarvagyna? It wasn't me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Sarvagnya, I understand your point but the GOI does get to determine India's official language, and as has been now established through a multitude of secondary and tertiary sources, Hindi is referred to as such. But you are correct in stating that there is more to the issue than a simple label and that is the reason I think the Infobox should list "Hindi1, English2 and others" rather than simply "Hindi" (which would be technically correct, but misleading). In fact IMO linking to the Official languages of India is preferable to just dumping a list of languages, since it better serves the reader in understanding the complicated situation. And as for English's use in administration and government, I'll be the first to acknowledge that fact (see my "Proposal 1 V3.0") above, but it is completely irrelevant to the "Official Language" status. If, say, a new government in all its wisdom declared Esperanto to be India's official language, wikipedia will have to parrot that information, even if only 10 Indians spoke in the tongue. Abecedare 03:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
If we do not follow the the 'Constitution' and the GOI for 'official' matters then what are we supposed to... can you give a solution???? I can't understand what's the confusion all about? KnowledgeHegemony 15:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India/Archive_12&oldid=1088797402"